Social Metadata for Libraries, Archives and Museums. Research findings from the RLG Partners Social Metadata Working Group. Rose Holley [email protected]Karen Smith-Yoshimura [email protected]Libraries Australia Forum Canberra October 20, 2010 http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/aggregating/
45
Embed
Social Metadata for Libraries, Archives and Museums. Research findings from the RLG Partners Social Metadata Working Group. Rose Holley [email protected].
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Social Metadata for Libraries, Archives and Museums.
Research findings from the RLG Partners Social Metadata Working Group.
Terminology: What are we talking about?Social media/networking
Ways for people to communicate online with each other e.g. Twitter, Facebook, Blogs.
User Generated Content (UGC)Things produced by users rather than owners of the site e.g. image, video, text AND metadata – tags, comments, notes.
Social MetadataAdditional information about a resource given by online users e.g. tags, comments.
Social Media FeaturesInteractive features added to a site that enable virtual groups to build and communicate with each other and social metadata to be added.
Social EngagementUser interaction online e.g. communication between users, from users to site owners, from users with objects/resources.
Web 2.0Online applications that facilitate interactive rather than passive experiences.
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-103
Social Metadata Working Group Focus• User contributions that can enrich
the descriptive metadata created by libraries, archives, and museums.
• Issues that need to be resolved to communicate and share user contributions on the network level.
The Wild West of Social Metadata for Libraries, Museums and Archives• Don’t do it…• Do it with caution….• Experimentation…..• Do a bit of everything –
the ‘WILD WEST’ – no rules
• Now: Review what we learnt and consolidate - plan for future, structure.
“With a gay bandanna around his neck, the modern cowboy presents a vivid picture in boots and spurs, and is just as skilful as an old time ‘puncher’”.
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1011
Our Research Aims ~20 QUESTIONS…• Objectives of Social Metadata?• How we measure success?• What UGC is of most value?• Good examples of sites?• Best practice – policy, guidelines?• Staffing?• Moderation?• Taxonomies and vocabularies?• Integration/sharing of social metadata?• Software, technology, functionality?
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1012
Who we are: 21 staff from 5 countries
• Drew Bourn, Stanford• Douglas Campbell,
National Library of New Zealand
• Kevin Clair, Penn State• Chris Cronin, U. Chicago• Christine DeZelar-Tiedman,
U. Minnesota• Mary Elings, UC Berkeley• Steve Galbraith, Folger• Cheryl Gowing, U. Miami• Rose Holley, National
Library of Australia• Rebekah Irwin, Yale• Lesley Kadish, Minnesota
Historical Society
• Helice Koffler, U. Washington
• Daniel Lovins, Yale• John Lowery, British Library• Marja Musson, International
Institute of Social History• Henry Raine, New-York
Historical Society• Cyndi Shein, Getty• Ken Varnum, U. Michigan• Melanie Wacker, Columbia• Kayla Willey, Brigham Young• Beth Yakel, U. Michigan,
School of Information
Staffed by Jean Godby, John MacColl, Karen Smith-Yoshimura
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1013
Our Method and Process
• Identify questions
• Find websites relevant for GLAM and review (76
sites)
• Read, listen, observe and share (200 items)
• Develop questionnaire for website managers and
send out
• Analyse results (42 returned)
• Discuss all findings and write up
• Develop recommendations
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1014
Our Techniques and Timing• Timeline 2009 - 2010• Sub working groups
(timezones and interests)
• Teleconferences• Basecamp – project
management and collaboration software tool
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1015
Basecamp
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1016
Our ResultsReport 1 – Website reviews, and use of third
• LibraryThing for Libraries (LTFL)• Flickr and Flickr Commons• Youtube• Facebook• Twitter• Wikipedia• Blogs
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1024
LibraryThing for Libraries
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1025
Flickr
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1026
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1027
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1028
Twitter
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1029
Wikipedia
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1030
Blogs
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1031
Interesting Facts….Figure 1: Countries represented in sites that responded to Social Metadata Survey. This includes Libraries, Archives, Museums, Community and Discipline sites.
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1032
Figure 2: How long social media features have been offered
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1033
Figure 3: Measuring success
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1034
Figure 4: Social media and user contribution features offered
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1035
Figure 5: Number of visitors contributing content per month
Top 10% = Australian Newspapers, Distributed Proofreaders, WorldCat
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1036
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1037
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1038
Figure 6: Roles staff serve on site
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1039
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1040
Recommendations (18 so far) Have clear objectives for using social media PR for organisation vs. community around collections
Motivate users and leverage their enthusiasmDesign, clear goals, easy and fun, reliable, intuitive, interesting, topical, acknowledgement, reward, community building features
Look at other sites to get ideas before starting (Report 1).
Establish/modify guidelines and policiesFor staff to use social mediaFor users creating social metadata (personal info and privacy, disclaimer, terms of use, behaviour, content, ownership, re-use, modification).
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1041
Recommendations Prepare/train staff
Policies, skills, interest level.
Consider benefits/trade offs of using third party sites e.g. Flickr, LibraryThing
Low cost, quick implementation, high visibility, be where your community is.No control over how presented, no guarantee of stability/preservation, policies may change, how to get social metadata back to your site?
Consider open source software
Do not worry about spam/abuse, issues – Go Ahead!Very little seen – fear not reality. Strategies to reduce risk (users register, take down policy, Captcha, high visibility of users and actions, user profiles open, be explicit about what you are doing and why).
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1042
Recommendations Usability testing
Continuous throughout – what works, what doesn’t. Develop with users
Display AND index social metadata and UGC
Consider if/how you want to integrate UGC with your own content.
Layers – user interface, layers behind, integrate?
Measures for successQuantitative/qualitative, subjective/objectiveReturn on Investment
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1043
Recommendations Use social networking features to build community
Who is online, contact other users, user profiles, recommendations from other users
Use persistent identifiers and make them visibleSite, objects resources (both site owners and UGC)
Ability to migrate/manage content (especially if using third party)
Can you migrate to another place, how to manage/delete/modify UGC?
Get content indexed by Google so users find it
Rose Holley and Karen Smith-Yoshimura
2010-1044
Recommendations Site to be alive – New content
Make sure visible and new content can be yours or users
Respond quickly to feedbackopen channels of communication with users
“makes me feel like I have a stake in the collections”“self-aggrandizing”“my feedback makes things happen”